Thoughts on the CSB

[Van]

TC, Agedman, Yeshua1, Rob BW, and Logos 1560, do you all claim John 1:1-13 cannot be translated using word for word philosophy methodology? You all do realize I could copy and past the NASB or LEB or NKJV and then edit the passage after comparing the choices in the NET, CSB, WEB or NIV. A child could do it.

Final thought, the Bible tells us not to adulterate God's word.

 

[Van]

This thread asked for thoughts on the CSB and I provided mine. It is a fine comparison bible, but stick to the more literal versions, like the NASB and LEB for study. Many times the CSB adds to the text needlessly, as in 1 Cor. 7:1, or alters the text as in 1 Cor. 6:5. If when using the word for word philosophy method, it seems best to translate a word meaning using a word or phrase outside the historical range, for readability or clarity, then the literal meaning should be footnoted as in infrequently done in the NASB.

 

[Rob_BW]

You can do whatever you wish. Like cast backhanded aspersions that those who translate in a manner you do not prefer are adulterating God's word.

But you can do it without me. I'm not putting you on ignore, but interacting with you on this topic is not fruitful for me. What appears to me an insistence that translation is as simple as 1+1=2 is a barrier that I don’t see us surmounting anytime soon.

 

[Van]

You can do whatever you wish. Like cast backhanded aspersions that those who translate in a manner you do not prefer are adulterating God's word.

But you can do it without me. I'm not putting you on ignore, but interacting with you on this topic is not fruitful for me. What appears to me an insistence that translation is as simple as 1+1=2 is a barrier that I don’t see us surmounting anytime soon.

At least you responded, but did not answer my question. John 1:5 says the light appeared in the darkness, but the darkness did not comprehend it. Or according to the CSB, did not overcome it. Does that mean the mockers, and scoffers, and naysayers did not manage to extinguish the light? Or just that they did not grasp divine enlightenment?

If you are going to study God's word, avoid second hand sources.

 

[agedman]

TC, Agedman, Yeshua1, Rob BW, and Logos 1560, do you all claim John 1:1-13 cannot be translated using word for word philosophy methodology? You all do realize I could copy and past the NASB or LEB or NKJV and then edit the passage after comparing the choices in the NET, CSB, WEB or NIV. A child could do it.

Final thought, the Bible tells us not to adulterate God's word.

The exact word for word would be awkward to read in English because the placement of the grammar is different. More often I think the word order and sentence structure, supporting what is as important, is missed by the English reader.

John 1:1-13 would read more like someone from New York City, compared to a fine upstanding Texan. It would just sound weird.

However, I think each of us have enjoyed at various levels of ability the wonder of engaging the purity of how the original was written

This weekend, I encountered what I considered an error, by the translators of the CSB, in Acts 15. It uses “brothers and sisters” when the reading of the original is very gender specific.

I use the term “word for word” to indicate that there is less paraphrasing, political correctness, or toning down of judgmental passages to make them more palatable.

One key passage is how is John 3:16 worded.

“Only,” and “one and only,” are just too inaccurate for my personal sensibilities.

The passage must state μονογενῆ as “only begotten” or “natural born” for that is a sign (fulfillment of prophecy) and a distinction (the uniqueness) and of difference (from all who are God’s by adoption),

 

[Van]

Thanks Agedman for your on topic post!
No one is advocating an exact word and in the same order replacement of the Greek words with English words. That is not how the NASB, LEB or NKJV translate their text. Interlinears provide that direct replacement translation methodology.
Yes, the word choices to convey the source language word or phrase meaning can result in difficult or awkward expression. For example the Greek might read literally "touch a woman" but the idiomatic meaning might be "use a women for sex." Better would be to either translate it "molest a woman" with a footnote "literally touch" or the other way around (my preference) put touch a woman in the main text and footnote the apparent idiomatic meaning, i.e. molest a woman.
As far as the CSB translation of Acts 15:7, I agree, as do pretty much all the other translations, Peter was addressing Apostles (all men) and Elders (all men) and so the politically correct "brothers and sisters" is an "adulteration" or corruption or mistranslation.
We differ on monogenes which means one of a kind, and in the context of John 3:16 one of His kind. Begotten is a mistranslation.
But thanks again for presenting your views with clarity.

 

[Logos1560]

I did not use any fallacy to support my claim, I supported it with examples.

Generalizing from a few verses examples to a broad-sweeping assertion about all verses would likely involve use of a fallacy. A few claimed examples does not prove your broad-sweeping assertion to be true.

It is misleading to make a blanket generalization about all verses from a few example verses.

 

[Van]

Hi Logos1560,
Did I say all the verses in CSB contained inaccurate corruptions? Nope. But yet you falsely asserted I did.
What exactly is this unspecified "broad sweeping assertion." That more literal, word for word translation philosophy versions were best for study, and the more loose translations were good for comparison bibles.

I demonstrated, with help from some of the posters, that the CSB needlessly rewrites the text forfeiting accurate and clarity. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

I also asserted that all scripture can be translated using the word for word translation philosophy, and therefore the more thought for thought versions needlessly rewrote the text. This too has not been challenged, other than the taint so posts using the fallacy of personal incredulity.

Now do you have some examples where loose translation is necessary? Or are you too holding an empty sack.

 

[Rippon]

Final thought, the Bible tells us not to adulterate God's word.

You are bearing false testimony Van.

You have charged the CSB and NIV in particular with adulterating God's Word.

You, Van, are guilty of gross fabrication and demeaning God's Word with your unholy, unedifying posts.

Stop your grandstanding Van.

 

[Rippon]

If you are going to study God's word, avoid second hand sources.

What hypocrisy! You use second-hand sources a great deal.

It's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[Rippon]

Hi Logos1560,
Did I say all the verses in CSB contained inaccurate corruptions?

You said it was "deeply flawed" and that it adulterates God's Word. Just below you claim that it "needlessly rewrites the text..."

I demonstrated, with help from some of the posters, that the CSB needlessly rewrites the text forfeiting accurate [sic] and clarity.

I also asserted that all scripture can be translated using the word for word translation philosophy,

Yes, you asserted that inanity.

 

[Van]

Folks, the last three posts were a sack full of insults, misrepresentations and change of subject bait.
The CSB is deeply flawed, because it adulterates the text with needless rewrites, such as Acts 15:7, where brothers. as translated by nearly all versions, was changed to brothers and sisters, even though based on context only men were in view.

Stick with word for word translation philosophy versions like the NASB and LEB as your primary study bible, and use less literal translations like the CSB for comparison purposes.

Still waiting for some examples where loose translation is necessary? Ask yourself why this "broad sweeping assertion" has not been supported with a few specific examples. OTOH, I have shown where some of the CSB loose translations were unnecessary.
Anytime you see where posters are questioning the character and qualifications of their opponent, they are holding an empty sack.

 

[Van]

5 That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it. CSB
Here we are considering whether overcome should be translated comprehend, as in the NASB, LEB and NKJV.
The CSB did footnote overcome with the alternate choices of grasp, comprehend or overtake.

Now we all should know that light overcomes darkness, because darkness is the absence of light. So right away we can clear the muddle away with picking between comprehend and overtake. If we look at verse 9, where the Light "enlightens" every person, the idea here is that the divine illumination was not grasped or fully understood by those exposed to the light.

Therefore, based on context, the best choice is "comprehend" (so NASB, LEB and NKJV).

All this to say that words or phrases may have more than one meaning, and using the word for word philosophy method, translators use context to choose between the possible historical word or phrase meanings. For example, in John 12:35 the same word translated comprehend here according to context, is translated overtake there.

Finally, lets consider 1 Thessalonians 5:4. Here the NASB and NKJV have overtake and the LEB has catch, but the CSB has surprise. Here the idea is to be caught unawares like we might be if a thief unexpectedly took something. So "surprise" is actually not a bad choice, just outside the historical range of meanings. Therefore, in a word for word philosophy version, surprise might be chosen, but then it would be footnoted "literally overtake.

 

[Yeshua1]

Folks, the last three posts were a sack full of insults, misrepresentations and change of subject bait.
The CSB is deeply flawed, because it adulterates the text with needless rewrites, such as Acts 15:7, where brothers. as translated by nearly all versions, was changed to brothers and sisters, even though based on context only men were in view.

Stick with word for word translation philosophy versions like the NASB and LEB as your primary study bible, and use less literal translations like the CSB for comparison purposes.

Still waiting for some examples where loose translation is necessary? Ask yourself why this "broad sweeping assertion" has not been supported with a few specific examples. OTOH, I have shown where some of the CSB loose translations were unnecessary.
Anytime you see where posters are questioning the character and qualifications of their opponent, they are holding an empty sack.

To you, ALL translation not on a formal basis are fatally flawed, correct?
Do you recognize the esv/Niv/Csb then as valid translations?

 

[Van]

Still waiting for Yeshua1 to answer my question. Instead he asks off topic questions to change the subject. Show me a verse than cannot be translated using the word for word philosophy. Will they answer or continue to misrepresent my views and offer change of subject bait.

Ever wonder why we cannot seem to discuss diffing views of biblical doctrine? Behold those that hinder.

 

[Yeshua1]

Still waiting for Yeshua1 to answer my question. Instead he asks off topic questions to change the subject. Show me a verse than cannot be translated using the word for word philosophy. Will they answer or continue to misrepresent my views and offer change of subject bait.

Ever wonder why we cannot seem to discuss diffing views of biblical doctrine? Behold those that hinder.

There are some Greek/Hebrew terms that will ahve no direct equivalence into English, idioms will be hard to translate strich fashion like that, and at times a strictly literal translation could get like an interlinear, and not a real translation!

 

[Yeshua1]

TC, Agedman, Yeshua1, Rob BW, and Logos 1560, do you all claim John 1:1-13 cannot be translated using word for word philosophy methodology? You all do realize I could copy and past the NASB or LEB or NKJV and then edit the passage after comparing the choices in the NET, CSB, WEB or NIV. A child could do it.

Final thought, the Bible tells us not to adulterate God's word.

Are those translation such as Esv/Niv/Csb doing that to the Bible then?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4 PM Pacific.

 

[TCassidy]

TC, Agedman, Yeshua1, Rob BW, and Logos 1560, do you all claim John 1:1-13 cannot be translated using word for word philosophy methodology?

Van, you cannot read a word of Hebrew or a word of Greek. You are not an expert on bible translation. Trust me on this. You are not even a neophyte. A neophyte at least knows a little Hebrew and Greek. You know none. None. You know nothing at all about bible translation. You know nothing about Greek grammar. You know nothing about Greek syntax. You know nothing about Greek verb tenses. You know nothing about Greek participles.

Van, I have been studying New Testament Greek for over 40 years and I still do not know enough to second guess translation choices made by men with much greater expertise than mine.

Just an example of one Greek verb.

Present Indicative Active of the word for loose.

Per. Ending Inflected Form English
Singular
1st ο (none) a λύω I loose/am loosing
2nd ε ς b λύεις you (sg) loose/are loosing
3rd ε ι λύει he/she/it looses/is loosing
Plural
1st ο μεν λύομεν we loose/are loosing
2nd ε τε λύετε you (pl) loose/are loosing
3rd ο νσι (ν) c λύουσι (ν) they loose/are loosing

Then we have the Present Indicative Middle/Passive
Per. Ending Inflected Form English
Singular
1st ο μαι λύομαι I am being loosed
2nd ε σαι a λύῃ you (sg) are being loosed
3rd ε ται λύεται he/she/it is being loosed
Plural
1st ο μεθα λυόμεθα we are being loosed
2nd ε σθε b λύεσθε you (pl) are being loosed
3rd ο νται λύονται they are being loosed

Followed by 28 more paradigm charts (most of them longer) finally ending with The Optative Mode:

Active Optative
Person Present 1st Aorist 2nd Aorist
1st sg λύοιμι λύσαιμι βάλοιμι
2nd sg λύοις λύσαις βάλοις
3rd sg λύοι λύσαι βάλοι
1st pl λύοιμεν λύσαιμεν βάλοιμεν
2nd pl λύοιτε λύσαιτε βάλοιτε
3rd pl λύοιεν λύσαιεν βάλοιεν

Middle Optatives (i.e., middle/passive present forms)
Person Present 1st Aorist 2nd Aorist
1st sg λυοίμην λυσαίμην βαλοίμην
2nd sg λύοιο λύσαιο βάλοιο
3rd sg λύοιτο λύσαιτο βάλοιτο
1st pl λυοίμεθα λυσαίμεθα βαλοίμεθα
2nd pl λύοισθε λύσαισθε βάλοισθε
3rd pl λύοιντο λύσαιντο βάλοιντο

Passive Optatives
Person Present 1st Aorist 2nd Aorist
1st sg N/A λυθείην γραφείην
2nd sg N/A λυθείης γραφείης
3rd sg N/A λυθείη γραφείη
1st pl N/A λυθείημεν γραφείημεν
2nd pl N/A λυθείητε γραφείητε
3rd pl N/A λυθείησαν γραφείησαν

Future Optative (not found in GNT)
Person Active Middle Passive
1st sg λύσοιμι λυσοίμην λυθησοίμην
2nd sg λύσοις λύσοιο λυθήσοιο
3rd sg λύσοι λύσοιτο λυθήσοιτο
1st pl λύσοιμεν λυσοίμεθα λυθησοίμεθα
2nd pl λύσοιτε λύσοισθε λυθήσοισθε
3rd pl λύσοιεν λύσοιντο λυθήσοιντο

That is all for just ONE Greek verb, Van. And when you look it up in Strong's you get ONE word, λυω (luo).

So, Van, when you have memorized all of those charts, come back and we will talk about your expertise as a bible translator.

 

[Jerome]

From the article in my thread Recently Published NT Translation:

"The sweeping conclusion is this: unless you can read the original languages, you should avoid making public pronouncements about which translation is best. Instead, here’s my suggestion: if you don’t know the languages and can’t read them well enough to translate accurately on your own but you want to tell your congregation or your listeners which translate is best, you need to admit it by saying something like this: 'On the basis of people I trust to make this decision, the ESV or the TNIV or the NRSV or the NLT is a reliable translation.'"